Saturday, October 30, 2010

This Saturday night the Rabin Square will once again be the site of the ritual rally marking Yitzhak Rabin’ assassination. Notably, it will take place under the theme "Remembering together; Preserving the Hope" ...

...There is indeed much in "public memory" ...that is in dire need of clarification - particularly in view of how it has been cynically distorted for partisan ends that diverge strongly from the positions Rabin himself stood for to his very last days. It is thus crucial that the public in Israel, and beyond, be reminded of the contents of this speech, for nothing else can more be more legitimately deemed "Rabin's Heritage."

...The address was made on October 5th, 1995 exactly a month prior to Rabin's assassination. As such, it was his last major policy statement and final articulation of his vision of the "permanent solution" with the Palestinians. Those believing that he would have abandoned it for a less conciliatory course might feel that their case was considerably strengthened by the recent declaration from his daughter that "on the eve of his death…he was considering a u-turn" and "stopping the Oslo Accords because terrorism was rampant, and… Arafat was not delivering on his promise."

As for the context, the speech was delivered after Rabin was awarded the Nobel Peace prize and after he was hailed as a courageous champion of peace. Significantly, the address was made during the debate on the Oslo II Accords for which Rabin was seeking Knesset ratification. At the time, the vision he set out was considered an unprecedented dovish/"leftist" prescription for far-reaching Israeli concessions and a doctrine which produced such dismay and dissension, it divided the nation into two roughly equal camps.

Rejecting 2-state solution
In that address, Rabin, the recently announced Nobel Peace laureate, rejected the two-state formula. In his view of the permanent solution regarding the Palestinian entity, he stipulated that this should " …be an entity which is less than a state… and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority."

Referring to the final frontiers of the country, he was unequivocal: "The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six-Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines."

As for what was to be included in Israel's permanent borders he prescribed that, at minimum, four elements must be ensured:

A united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty as the nation's capital;

the Jordan Valley as Israel's security border;

the incorporation of existing settlements across the 1967 "Green Line" into the sovereign territory of Israel; and

the establishment of new settlement bloc across the Green Line like those later destroyed in the Gaza disengagement.

No less noteworthy - especially given the current ballyhoo over the "building freeze" - was Rabin's position on issue of construction in the trans-Green Line settlements. Before the Israeli parliament and public he declared: "…we committed...ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."

These were Rabin's last recorded commitments to the nation. ... even though the positions espoused by Rabin were considered excessively concessionary, inducing fierce repudiation by many, Israel has retreated from every position set out by him in his vision of a "permanent solution."

Yet despite this dramatic erosion of every single principle enshrined in Rabin's last legacy, Israel is still accused of intransigence - not only by its foes but by those who feign friendship. Still it is pressed for ever more far-reaching concessions - now not even to reach a permanent settlement, but merely so the Palestinians might deign to resume negotiations.

...But even more ominous is the imperceptible accumulation of dangers that this continuous capitulation entails for the nation. This is perhaps best conveyed by the by the parable of the "boiled frog" ...

"…if you place (a frog)… in a pot of tepid water…, it will float there quite placidly. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor …and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresistingly allow itself to be boiled to death."

Given the relentless retreat in Israeli positions that we have witnessed over the last decade and a half, how far can we be from boiling point?

Friday, October 29, 2010

From Times Live (Johannesburg), Oct 29, 2010. by Allan Wolman, Rosebank:

...Desmond Tutu's call urging the Cape Town Opera to call off its tour to Israel confirms his agenda of demonising Israel. His stance borders on anti-Semitism...

...how can he deny the lies that he perpetuates when referring to Israel's "fallacious claim to being a civilised democracy". This is indeed rich given the neighbourhood that Israel is located in.

He goes on to claim "millions of citizens are denied the right to education and cultural opportunities in Israel and the Palestinian territories it occupies". How right he is if only he confines this remark to the Palestinian Authority.

I challenge the good Archbishop to deny that Israel practises absolutely no discrimination whatsoever regarding race, religion or creed, something that is enshrined in Israeli law and fiercely protected by an independent Supreme Court.

The tragic truth is that it suits Tutu's agenda to have the Palestinians endure permanent refugee and occupation status.

Just a day after Osama bin Laden warned France to remove its troops from Afghanistan, French Defense Minister Herve Morin announced Thursday, Oct. 28 that the withdrawal of French troops would begin in early 2011. Paris then raised its terror alert level to "red" after confirming the authenticity of the Bin Laden audiotape aired Wednesday.

...Morin tried hard to explain that the decision to pull the 3,750 French troops out of Afghanistan was not connected to the Bin Laden warning - but he was not convincing.

...never since the September 11, 2001 attacks on America, has any Western country caved in so quickly and precisely to an Al Qaeda ultimatum.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

The Palestinian Authority renowned for its bizarre proclamations has now threatened that it would unilaterally abrogate the Oslo Accords if the peace talks break down.

For ten months, Mahmoud Abbas refused to indulge in direct negotiations with us, relying on the Obama Administration to act as their interlocutors and pressure us into providing further concessions without reciprocity. Now, after the ten month settlement construction freeze expired, Abbas informs us that if we do not extend it, he refuses to negotiate....

But topping the absurdity of this theatre of the absurd is the threat by PA spokesmen, Yasser Aboud, to abort the Oslo Accords if the negotiations break down. Needless to say a “breakdown” is regarded as Israel not acceding to all Palestinian demands.

We know the Palestinian end game in negotiations. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had offered Abbas concessions that neither the Knesset nor the people of Israel would ever have endorsed. These included foregoing indefensible borders by returning to the 1949 armistice lines, enabling the Palestinians to assume control of the Temple Mount and even making a preliminary offer to accept 100,000 Palestinian “refugees”. Yet these offers were rejected by Abbas.

I am reminded of the last conversation I had with Rabin before his assassination. I asked him: “What would your response be if the Palestinians made absolutely unreasonable demands?” Rabin replied that if Arafat sought to divide Jerusalem or was not prepared to concede that Israel needed defensible borders he would conclude that his “gamble for peace” had failed and would feel obliged to inform Israelis that they would have to await a new generation of Palestinian leaders before making tangible progress towards attaining a durable peace.

... I am bemused when I hear people on the far left exploiting Rabin’s memory and distorting his views in order to promote policies to which, at least during his lifetime, he would have adamantly opposed. Indeed, on the basis of his previous record, Rabin would probably not have placated the Palestinians or the Americans to the same extent as Netanyahu.

...It does not take a genius to realize that this entire process is designed to extract further concessions from Israel which the Palestinians would insist become the benchmark for the next round negotiations as they doggedly pursue their objective of dismantling us in stages.

Despite all the concessions that we made, the Palestinians and Arabs refused to even reciprocate with gestures. Abbas has a forked tongue and conveys nice words to the foreign media and Diaspora Jews which are never expressed in Arabic to his constituents. There, he continues to incite hatred against us, sanctifies suicide bombers as national heroes and condemns us for defending ourselves against terrorists.

In this context it is both incomprehensible and nauseating when senior analysts and political leaders repeat the absurd mantra that the PA and Abbas are moderate peace partners...

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Germany's Foreign Ministry was far more involved in the murder of millions of Jews than previously thought...

A report to be published this week reveals that diplomats actively assisted the Nazis in their campaign of genocide against the Jews, contradicting post-war attempts to portray Germany's wartime Foreign Ministry in a positive light.

"The Foreign Ministry actively supported all measures of persecution, rights deprivation, expulsions and the Holocaust," Eckart Conze, one of four historians asked to investigate the role played by the ministry in the Holocaust, told the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.

"The Foreign Ministry was actively involved in every operation to persecute, strip away the rights of, expel and exterminate the Jews from the very beginning," Conze said.

Conze, who spent five years researching diplomatic archives, also condemned the ministry during wartime as a "criminal organization" in the German news magazine Spiegel.

Conze said post-war claims that officials within the ministry had resisted Nazi policies were untrue. In fact, he said, the ministry had often been proactive in its efforts to carry out the will of the Third Reich leadership.

The study, commissioned in 2005 by former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, looked at the activities of ministry between 1933 and 1945. The panel of historians is due to present its full findings later this week.

Support of war-crime suspects
Fischer was quoted by the newspaper as saying that he was "horrified" by the level of support and advice offered by the ministry to help war-crime suspects escape Germany after the country's defeat.

"As I read this report, I became more and more shocked," said Fischer.

Among the documents was a paper from the official responsible for Jewish affairs, Franz Rademacher, citing the "liquidation of Jews in Belgrade" as a reason for one of his foreign trips.

The report was praised by current Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle as "an important work" that would contribute greatly to the ministry's knowledge of its own past.

Westerwelle's predecessor, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said the fact that it had taken 60 years since the end of the war to begin the inquiry was "incredible."

The American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants also hailed the report, saying it "categorically refuted" previous attempts to sanitize the Foreign Ministry's role in the Holocaust.

"Germany has taken an honest and painful look at its past," said the group's president Elan Steinberg in a statement. "This report is a pointed reminder of the broad cross section of German society and institutions which were implicated in the Holocaust and the brutalities of the Nazi regime."

...The ministry's role has long been controversial because many Nazi-era diplomats continued to work for the ministry after 1945 - many claiming they had always been opposed to Hitler's regime.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Dr. Richard L. Rubinstein, author of "Jihad and Genocide", Harvard Phd, Yale fellow, "Distinguished Professor of the Year", and Harvard Phd, states that president Obama's intention is to "correct the historical mistake of the creation of the state of Israel." Dr. Rubenstein states that president Obama due to his family heritage is extremely pro Muslim - to the point of "wanting to see the destruction of Israel."

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Prosecutors in the trial against Samuel Kunz before the district court in Bonn, Germany are seeking co-plaintiffs, as defined by the relevant German Law.

The prosecution accuses Samuel Kunz of having been an accomplice to the murder of 435,000 persons in the period between late November 1941 and the spring of 1943, when he was a guard at the extermination camp of Belzec.

Prosecutors in Bonn today (Thurs) announced that Kunz will stand trial in January.

...Kunz is said to be one of the most notorious wartime Nazis yet to stand trial and was number three most wanted on the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's list of fugitives.

He is said to have assisted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews while he was serving in the German army in Belzec in occupied Poland between 1942-43. He is also charged with murdering 10 prisoners personally.

One former German serviceman posted with Kunz at the camp told how he snatched his machine gun away from him when he was reluctant to open fire on prisoners saying: "That's not how you shoot."

Kunz then grabbed the gun and opened fire on the defenceless Jewish civilians.

A prospective co-plaintiff in this trial is any person whose parent, sibling or spouse was murdered in Belzec.

A co-plaintiff has the right to file motions, make declarations and to plead at the end of the trial. Moreover, a co-plaintiff can be represented by an attorney, who will be appointed and remunerated by the court.

The co-plaintiff does not even have to appear at the trial in person. He or she has the right to take part in the trial, but this presence is not a requirement. A co-plaintiff does not have to bear any of the action’s costs; neither does he or she have to pay for the appointed attorney.

The participation of co-plaintiffs is important because they give names and faces to the victims and participation presents an opportunity to hold the accused to account in the name of the co-plaintiff’s murdered relatives.

The attorneys preparing the participation of co-plaintiffs:Thomas Walther conducted the pre-investigation against John Demjanjuk in his function as a special prosecutor in the central institution for prosecuting Nazi-crimes in Ludwigsburg and has thus played a decisive part in bringing Demjanjuk to criminal trial before the district court in Munich. Thomas Walther is currently an attorney.

Michael Koch and Cornelius Nestler are each representing several co-plaintiffs in the trial against John Demjanjuk before the district court in Munich. Michael Koch is an attorney specializing in criminal law in Frankfurt/Main, Prof. Dr. Cornelius Nestler is professor of criminal law and criminal procedure at the University of Cologne

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

Copyright Notice

JIW includes excerpts from many sources using their copyright material for the purpose of education and discussion only, and not for profit. We acknowledge and link to our sources.We reserve all rights to our own original material, including the excerpted and edited version of the source material. However you are welcome to use JIW material freely for the purpose of education and discussion only, and not for profit, and provided proper acknowledgement is included.